That the Jews are still seen as usurpers in their native homeland, as witness the ongoing controversy over Jerusalem, is a triumph for the grossly distorted "Palestinian" chronology of anti-Zionist propaganda.

Contrary to popular belief, Palestine had long ceased to exist until its reconstitution by the League of Nations Mandate for the express purpose of reinstating the Jews in recognition of their unrelinquished claim. Zionism therefore generated modern Palestine which, decades later, generated the historically unknown Palestinians.

The land which had entered history as the sovereign homeland of the Jews was plunged into desolate obscurity by the Romans who, to punish Jewish resistance during the second century, named it Palestine (the "Philistine land") and then destroyed it. Later invaders incorporated its remnants into their wider domains. Echoing earlier observations, the Foreign Office admits that, until the Mandate (granted to Britain by the League of Nations), Palestine did not actually exist: "That it was an imprecise term used imprecisely." The Arabs regarded this region as southern Syria and opposed Palestine's emergence.

In regenerating Palestine, the League of Nations resolved, with Britain's strong support, that its modern manifestation should reflect its biblical precedent, the source of its very being and permanence, by incorporating territory on both sides of the River Jordan wherein the Jewish nation had evolved. Its actual borders were then determined by those of recently established neighboring entities.

Until recent developments, Zionism had been under no obligation to accommodate a separate "Palestinian" claim, there being no historical evidence or witness for any such Arab category. Even during the Mandate, incitement against Jews and Zionism had to rely on religious pretexts and pan-Arabic dreams to gain popular support. Had a "Palestinian people" then existed, it would surely have been central to all the deliberations relating to this area up to and including UN Resolution 242, which speaks only of the "Arab refugees."

In fact, the first mention of a "Palestinian people" dates from the aftermath of the 1967 war, when the local Arabic-speaking communities, historically diverse and largely augmented by modern immigration from a swath of countries from the Mahgreb to Bosnia were retrospectively endowed with a contrived "nationhood" incorporating national-territorial terms of reference taken from Jewish history as its essential and defining component.

Clearly, since Roman times "Palestinian" had meant Jews until the Arab's recent adoption of this identity in order to claim it as their land.

Not only did this land persist solely within the framework of Jewish history and tradition, but the Jews alone have upheld their claim to it as a country in its own right. Contrary to widely held misconceptions, Israel's presence in all parts of Palestine remains legal on both historical and mandatory grounds.

Quoting eminent legal luminaries who saw the Jewish claim as legally sound, Dr. W.E. Blackstone pointed out in 1891 that, since the Jews never gave up their title, nor ever abandoned their land, the general "law of dereliction" could not hold in their case. They made no treaty and did not even surrender, but simply succumbed to the overwhelming power of the Romans after the most desperate, prolonged conflict and were captured or enslaved. Since then they have disputed the possession of the land by all available means and have neither sought nor gained independence elsewhere.

Blackstone further affirmed that, according to logical precedents established by such authorities as Buswell, Wheaton, Clifford, Phillimore and others, "the forcible manner by which Israel has been kept out of the land with no means of redress" is equivalent in principle to a continued "state of war" and that, therefore, "limitations should in no event run against them pending settlement of their claim."

Hence, according to the foundation principles of international law, there was no basis for prescription against the Jewish people, either on the ground of dereliction or of undisputed possession, so that their continuously affirmed title remained valid while there were Jewish claimants alive. This right was recognized and endorsed by Britain in "Peace Handbook No. 162 on Zionism" (F.O. k920), and by the Mandate of the League of Nations to reinstate the Jews in their native homeland.

The Mandate was never abrogated and what, therefore, was truly illegal was Britain's subsequent betrayal of her commission which forced the Jews into a corner of their unrelinquished patrimony. Any curtailment of Jewish rights resulting from this anti-Zionist aggression, though dutifully rubber-stamped by the U.N., may to this day be deemed invalid.

In exposing the Arab's usurpation of "Palestine," the problem arises, if not "Palestinian" then what should we call them? It is a fair question with no easy answer, given the historical error of permitting unchallenged their originally small numbers to be drastically increased by modern immigration to the point where they could no longer be safely absorbed as citizens of the Jewish state and are unwilling or unable to resettle in the wider Arab sphere.

It can, however, be argued that, had the early Zionists had the foresight to insist on the indigenous name "Eretz Yisrael" rather than the alien "Palestine," then the Arabs would have been faced with the dilemma of what to call themselves that would not be seen as obviously artificial. As things stand, Israel could, at the very least, invoke the principle of population exchange and insist that this be placed within a framework that rightly includes Jordan as a part of Palestine.

In conclusion, it should be noted that many Orthodox Jews challenge these "secular arguments for Israel on the ground that they are futile, if not irrelevant, without Israel also becoming a Torah-true society, that with the return to Torah the physical existence of the Jewish state would be ensured according to Divine Will and require no further justification. They hold that until then, Israel will continue to be plagued by her internal and external enemies and that her apostasy may even result, as prophesied, in the Jews being "spewed" out of the land.

According to this traditional viewpoint, Israel should have a unique quality to substantiate her existence and that must surely lie in the noble teachings and practices of Torah that constitute the very essence of Jewish nationhood. How Judaism will attune to modern conditions is another matter (with its all-embracing quality, this should not be an impossible task) and such adaptation could provide a model for rooting out the worst excesses of "western" civilization.

Dan Nimrod is the editor and publisher of Dawn Publishing Company, Ltd. He can be reached by writing to 17 Anselme Lavigne, Dollard des Ormeaux, Quebec H9A 1N3, Canada.